Lawsuit: Adjourned Walmart co. v. Olisaurus123 and Montilou [2022] FCR 13

Featured Businesses

Status
Not open for further replies.

Olisaurus123

Citizen
Education & Commerce Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
Olisaurus123
Olisaurus123
economist
Thank you your Honor.

Questions to Olisaurus:
1. On what basis are you assuming that you were not aware of DEC procedures since you have been informed of this by xerxesmc? (see ticket extract bellow)
2. Basing on server logs provided by staff, why did you advertise the connected players to come to Walmart's plot and sell their stuff? (see logs bellow)

Line 4530: [12:18:37] [Craft Scheduler Thread - 1337 - VentureChat/INFO]: L | Trainee Doctor Olisaurus123 » come c-054
Line 8527: [12:17:30] [Server thread/INFO]: Olisaurus123 issued server command: /msg Vernicia come to c-054 I show you
Line 458774: [18:32:48] [Craft Scheduler Thread - 2797 - VentureChat/INFO]: G | Trainee Doctor Olisaurus123 » Milqy come c-054
Line 409101: [18:29:39] [Craft Scheduler Thread - 2795 - VentureChat/INFO]: G | Trainee Doctor Olisaurus123 » come to c-054, this is where I sold 16k worth of enchantment tables
Line 431168: [18:31:04] [Craft Scheduler Thread - 2789 - VentureChat/INFO]: G | Trainee Doctor Olisaurus123 » AB6A5SI u coming c-054
1. On what basis are you assuming that you were not aware of DEC procedures since you have been informed of this by xerxesmc? (see ticket extract bellow)
1. I was aware of basic procedure because I needed to sign up on the forums to gain access to the company creation command. I was not aware of what needed to happen after the first company was created and after I have access to the command. All I knew at the time was that you needed to register in order to get company creation access.

2. Basing on server logs provided by staff, why did you advertise the connected players to come to Walmart's plot and sell their stuff? (see logs bellow)
2. I was not advertising that they should come and sell at c-054, I was getting second opinions on the whole situation with the half open building.
 

PiOs67

Citizen
Justice Department
Redmont Bar Association
PiOs67
PiOs67
constable
My apologize your Honor,
I have other questions for the witness:
  1. How did you created your company if you were not fully aware of the procedure?
  2. Why did Xerxes assume « you knew that you could not make a company in game unless it is registered to you on the forum » ?
  3. Did the persons you called came to the plot? Why didn't you summoned them as witnesses if they could bring opinions on the whole situation?
Thank you
 

Olisaurus123

Citizen
Education & Commerce Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
Olisaurus123
Olisaurus123
economist
My apologize your Honor,
I have other questions for the witness:
  1. How did you created your company if you were not fully aware of the procedure?
  2. Why did Xerxes assume « you knew that you could not make a company in game unless it is registered to you on the forum » ?
  3. Did the persons you called came to the plot? Why didn't you summoned them as witnesses if they could bring opinions on the whole situation?
Thank you
Very sorry Your Honor, for the wait.

1. I was aware of basic procedure which is what took place when I created my first company and I still had permission from creating the Lemonade company.

2. Can you please rephrase this question as I don't understand what you're asking.

3. I didn't realize that Plaintiff would focus on such a minor and innocuous couple of messages and I didn't think it would matter
 

PiOs67

Citizen
Justice Department
Redmont Bar Association
PiOs67
PiOs67
constable
Good evening,
My apologize for the delay.

The aim of my question was actually to understand the difference between the statement of Xerxes in this ticket and what Olisaurus is explaining in front of this court.
Considering the lack of cooperation of the witness and seeing how elusive the answers are, I don't see the purpose of spending more time on the questions.

Thank you
 

nnmc

Citizen
Deputy Speaker of the House
Representative
Redmont Bar Association
nnmc
nnmc
deputyspeaker
I believe that we have concluded witness testimonies. Counsels, please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that all witnesses have had direct and cross examination done.

Assuming such, we will now proceed to closing statements. @Magills0819 @PiOs67 @Montilou you all have 48 hours from now to provide a closing statement. In total, there will be 3 closing statements, one from each of you.
 

PiOs67

Citizen
Justice Department
Redmont Bar Association
PiOs67
PiOs67
constable
Your Honor,

I am facing currently an important amount of work (in real life). I would therefore like to request 24h extension from the curent deadline in order to prepare correctly my conclusions on this affair.

Thank you for your understanding.
 

nnmc

Citizen
Deputy Speaker of the House
Representative
Redmont Bar Association
nnmc
nnmc
deputyspeaker
Extension granted for PiOs67
 

Magills0819

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Magills0819
Magills0819
klondike-res-ns
We’d like to submit our closing statement after @PiOs67, in order to respond to any points he makes, given that the usual procedure is for the Plaintiff to provide a closing statement before the defence.
 

nnmc

Citizen
Deputy Speaker of the House
Representative
Redmont Bar Association
nnmc
nnmc
deputyspeaker
To both defendants:

No. Court rules and procedures were modified to remove any reference to which side should present first or last. In the interest of time, you are all to present closing statements together. If you want an extension for compelling reasons, then request one.
 

Montilou

Citizen
Donator
Montilou
Montilou
donator1
Your Honor,

I haven't had much time to focus on the case in the past few days due to an overload of work in real life this past week, thus I'd like to ask for a 24 hour extension to be able to finish my closing statement.

Thank you for understanding.
 

nnmc

Citizen
Deputy Speaker of the House
Representative
Redmont Bar Association
nnmc
nnmc
deputyspeaker
Extension granted for montilou
 

Magills0819

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Magills0819
Magills0819
klondike-res-ns
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honour, opposing counsel,

This case has dragged on for a long time, with 8 witnesses and over 100 forum posts. And yet, at its core this case is very simple. The key facts are not in dispute. There is one simple question left to answer, were my client’s actions unlawful. The answer, no. And this is why:

The Plaintiff incorrectly alleges that our client:
1. Trespassed
2. Aimed to disband Walmart
3. Violated PIPA

I will focus a paragraph on each, labelled with the number.

1. Our client could not have trespassed as he never received a request to leave from any Walmart employee, nor was there any sign warning him that he was trespassing. The Plaintiff alleges that a small wall made it clear the area was under construction, and our client should not have entered regardless. Firstly, a small wall, which clearly did not cover the entire property, does not make it at all clear that entry is not permitted. Even if it did, Law 13.6 is clear. Our client could only be trespassing if he received “two warnings” or that there was a sign instructing him not to enter.
 

Magills0819

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Magills0819
Magills0819
klondike-res-ns
2. The Plaintiff alleges that our client aimed to disband Walmart. Within this, I will also include the allegations of market manipulation, and trying to gain access to Walmart company chests. In regards to market manipulation, the evidence is clear. Every witness called by the Plaintiff themselves refused to describe our client’s actions as market manipulation. In terms of trying to disband Walmart, the Plaintiff has provided no evidence of any such conspiracy. In such a case, our client’s testimony that this was not the case tips the balance of the probabilities in favour of the Defense. The evidence goes completely against the Plaintiff with regards to trying to gain access to chests. We’ve seen in this case a conversation involving my client in which he asks whether he can take from the Walmart chests, having realised he could access them. The Plaintiff has alleged that this shows our client intentionally bankrupted Walmart to gain access to said chests. It is clear however that this screenshot, in combination with our client's testimony, that our client was surprised he could access the chests, meaning he couldn't have planned to access them, and was asking to see whether he was permitted to take items, proving his intent was not malicious.
3. The Plaintiff’s allegation that our client violated the Protect Intellectual Property Act misses one key point, no cease and desist letter was sent to our client, which is required to sue for breach of the Act, even ignoring if my client even broke the act.

Thank you.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.
 

Montilou

Citizen
Donator
Montilou
Montilou
donator1
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor, opposing counsel,

I said nearly everything I had to say in my opening statement, so here are my final thoughts on everything that's happened with the case.

1 - Reviewing the allegations, and the "facts" attached to them.
2 - Reviewing the charges filed against us

1. The opposing counsel presented 5 facts in their opening statement, along with their interpretation of what each fact proved. The first one of these was an allegation that we illegally trespassed onto Walmart's property to sell them items. The fact linked to this is a few photos of the building in question with a 5 block high wall circling the building. They have repeatedly claimed that this wall is more than enough evidence that the building wasn't open to the public, and that we therefore trespassed because it wasn't the will of Walmart to allow public access into the building. This is such a far stretch that it shouldn't even need to be acknowledged, but here is the reason why this "5 block high wall" doesn't mean anything, and why we didn't trespass:

There was no sign anywhere on the premises stating "No Trespassing".

If there was no sign, it completely destroys the entire argument of us ever trespassing, as it is not a consumer's responsibility to determine if a store is open, it is a business owner's responsibility to make sure that their will is clearly conveyed, through a sign more clear than a 5 block high wall surrounding the building. How do I know this isn't enough? Because I entered the building without a shadow of a doubt that it was open. Nowhere in the law does it state that a 5 block high wall is enough to determine if somebody is trespassing, however, the law does mention warning people, or adding a sign, neither of which happened in our case.


In this opening statement, the opposing counsel also claimed that we committed market manipulation, and that we sold Walmart the items with malicious intentions. There isn't a single shred of evidence anywhere on this case that either of these allegations are true, apart from a few messages taken completely out of context.

2. The opposing counsel also decided to sue us for fraud, which is extremely confusing to me considering the fact that once again, there isn't a shred of evidence anywhere that we sold these items with malicious intentions, in order to take stock from the Walmart chest shops. I cannot speak on Olisaurus' behalf, but I think it's extremely clear that the conversation between Trentrick_Lamar and Olisaurus123 shortly after the sales was spawned entirely in shock, therefore destroying the argument that these sales were made on purpose in an attempt to commit fraud.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.
 

PiOs67

Citizen
Justice Department
Redmont Bar Association
PiOs67
PiOs67
constable
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Walmart Co
Plaintiff

v.

Olisaurus123 and Montilou
Defendants

CLOSING STATEMENT
Your Honor and opposing parties,

“The right to contract is only the faculty to choose the means of its happiness” said Cambaceres, one of the most famous author of 1804 French Civil Code.
Every citizen should thus have the right to choose to contract or not. The will of a person should be expressed through a clear consent. This question of liberty of contract is in the centre of this case.

5 points of law are risen into this case:
1° the trespassing offense
2° the legal conditions of the contract
3° the attempt of fraud
4° the breach of copyright
5° conditions of engagement of civil liability
Let’s answer to these questions point by point, considering each time the law, the fact and finally the conclusions to have.

1) The right of access or not to a plot.

What is trespassing? The SLATT act is very clear on this point, in spite of what the defendants claimed during this case.
The first paragraph of the act clearly defines trespassing as the fact of entering a place without the consent of the owner of the place.
The second paragraph seems to be confusing for the defendants. However, we can assume that the condition of warning / sign has been put into parenthesis by the legislator. This condition is moreover followed by the statement “grants the owner legal authority to initiate PvP provided they can prove that the trespasser was warned”. This paragraph is simply a form of avoidance of civil responsibility if the owner starts a fight against the trespasser, not a form of condition to prove the consent of the owner of the place.

Factually, the absence of consent of the owner of the place, cjcroft has been materialized by the construction of a 5 blocks-high wall surrounding totally the plot (as proved in opening statement), and the presence of a locked door. The only possible way to enter the plot was the roof. This fact has been proved by the defendants themselves, using the statement of staff member deadwax “the majority of the building was open but I did see a wall blocking the front door. I entered the building from the roof”. Defendants thus likely used elytras to enter this plot from the roof. This is not a normal way to enter people’s properties.

The point of the investigations is not to see if the building was totally locked, but to see if the plot was normally accessible and open. In this case, the only way to access the plot was through the airs, which is not a normal way to enter a place. By the strict application of the SLATT act, we can assume that the trespassing offence is characterized.

2) The legal conditions of the contract

The contract is a legal act by which two or more parties make a transaction. Any exchange, from buying a bread to selling a company is a contract, and should be legally formed. The contract is always formed by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance. Our legislator specified this point through the Foundation of Contract Law Act.
“(1) A contract must begin with an offer, this is an unequivocal statement of terms on which you are prepared to do business
(2) It cannot be vague or ambiguous”
The Supreme Court in the case Beray20 v. Rylint [2021] FCR 118, applied this definition of the contract through a “legal test for contract formation”.

Through the application of the SLATT act, the defendant trespassed a property to operate this transaction on chest shops. If we can obviously observe the existence of an offer formed by Montilou and Olisaurus, the acceptance is inexistent, or at least forced. The consent to the contract has not been freely given by Walmart Co, who have been irregularly forced to conclude this transaction.

Can we consider this as a contract? This contract is inexistent, or at least defective. The judge should thus, by the application of the law, protect the fundamental principle of security of transactions, and pronounce the avoidance of this contract. As a consequence of the avoidance of this illegal contract, the price of the transaction will be returned to Walmart Co., and the objects of the transaction (sea lanterns and enchanting tables) will be returned to defendants.

3) Attempt of fraud
A fraud is “A dishonest or illegal scheme of successfully obtaining or attempting to obtain something of value.” (art 3, Fraud definition amendment act).

In this case, defendant Olisaurus asked Trentrick_Lamar the way to access to the chest shops, as a result of disband of the society. If the proof of a willingness is impossible to bring, it is however possible to bring to the court a body of evidence. Considering the fact that Montilou and Olisaurus voluntarily purchased obsidian from Walgreen to sell it to Walmart (see Trentrick_Lamar's testimony), conducted a campaign to discredit Walmart Co, and ultimately created a fake Wallmart company on the forum and in game, it is possible to conclude that the defendant most certainly conducted this activity in a malicious manner to obtain Walmart assets.

These evidences and conclusions should be left to the judge’s discretion, who could engage civil liability of defendants on this ground.

4) Breach of trademark

The breach of copyright has been defined by the legislator in the Protection of Intellectual Property Act in its article 3.

In this case, Montilou and Olisaurus, who both took the decision to register a Walmart company in game and on the forum, impersonated and used recognisable signs, designs and expressions which identify Walmart Trademark.

Moreover, the Art 4 of this act condition the legal action on the sending of a “cease and desist letter”. In spite of a legal definition of this term, the cease and desist letter should be defined as a formal notice to stop the breach of trademark.
In this case, defendant Olisaurus opened a DEC ticket on January 30th (ticket provided by defendant council to questions for xerxesmc) in which Xerxesmc formally warned him about the illegality of his actions. The defendant benefit from a reasonable delay, since the legal action has been introduced on February 4th.

Civil liability of the defendant thus should be engaged on this basis.

5) Civil liability of the defendants

Any act of a person, which causes damage to another, obliges the person by whose fault was done to repair it. This relation of law between the perpetrator of the fault and the victim is the civil liability. The civil liability should be engaged under 3 conditions. A fault, a prejudice, and a link of causality between the fault and the prejudice.

In this case, the fault has been characterized. Montilou and Olisaurus forced Walmart Co. to conclude an irregular transaction. This unconsented contract generated a $16,745.15 lost from company balance, and leaded as a direct consequence to the in-game liquidation of Walmart Co. The in-game liquidation leaded logically to the closure of all Walmart Co. chest-shops from January 30th 2022 to February 4th 2022, generating a loss of $900 per day of closure.

Moreover, it has been proved that both defendants carried out a campaign of discredit against the company through several ads and messages in chat, which have all been added by defendant to the debate. This behaviour should also be recognized as a fault by the court. All these consequences impacted Walmart reputation, as stated Trentrick_Lamar concerning question 5.

The prejudice generated by these faults should be entirely repaired, as a logical consequence of civil liability. Walmart Co should thus receive $3600 ($900 per days of closure) and $1200 for moral and reputation prejudice.


Thank you for your attention and your time during all this case.


By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.
 

Montilou

Citizen
Donator
Montilou
Montilou
donator1
OBJECTION: PERJURY

Your Honor,

In Walmart's closing statement, PiOs67 very clearly and obviously misrepresented and lied about Fact 1, being the photos of the building, by saying "The only possible way to enter the plot was the roof".

In the attached screenshots that I took today, over a month after the lawsuit started, you can very clearly see that every single wall is open, aside from the front one.
 

Attachments

  • 2022-03-05_12.48.47.png
    2022-03-05_12.48.47.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 35
  • 2022-03-05_12.49.12.png
    2022-03-05_12.49.12.png
    1,023.3 KB · Views: 34
  • 2022-03-05_12.48.27.png
    2022-03-05_12.48.27.png
    1.6 MB · Views: 30
  • 2022-03-05_12.48.32.png
    2022-03-05_12.48.32.png
    2 MB · Views: 35

PiOs67

Citizen
Justice Department
Redmont Bar Association
PiOs67
PiOs67
constable
Answer to objection and lack of relevance

Your Honor,

I am truly shocked to see how disrespectful the defendant is to the work provided by plaintiff's council, and how they forgot previous evidences in this court case.

I simply want to drive your attention on the fact that these pictures have all been taken on Saturday, March 5th. They thus are not representative of the situation of the plot at the time of the facts. These picture don't bring anything to the debates (which have been already closed), and are not relevant enough to be the ground to a perjury objection.
All the allegations of the plaintiff have been properly proved in the opening statement fact No 1. and with the statement of staff member deadwax provided by the defendants. I already developed this argumentation in my closing statement, I won't come back on it.

Thank you
 

nnmc

Citizen
Deputy Speaker of the House
Representative
Redmont Bar Association
nnmc
nnmc
deputyspeaker
Objection overruled for the reasons said by the plaintiff

This court is now in recess while I write a verdict. This will likely take at least a few days.
 

nnmc

Citizen
Deputy Speaker of the House
Representative
Redmont Bar Association
nnmc
nnmc
deputyspeaker

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

Case No. [2022] FCR 13

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff accuses Defendants of using Walmart chest shops in an unintended way by trespassing to access chest shops, meaning that there is no valid contract for the conducting of the business at hand. Therefore, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated contract law.
2. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' actions regarding the chest shops were a form of market manipulation. The Plaintiff accuses defendants of trying to devalue or destroy Walmart for their personal financial gain.
3. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the intellectual property of Walmart, by trying to form a company also named Walmart with similar branding.
4. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' usage of chest shops constitute fraud. Plaintiff claims that the usage of chest shops was dishonest and intended to forcibly obtain the cash assets of Walmart.

II. DEFENDANTS POSITION
1. Defendant Montilou and Olisaurus123 claims the lack of a No Trespassing sign allows Defendant to legally enter the Walmart plot and thus legally use the chest shops on site, thereby acquitting him of any crime by using the chest shops.
2. Defendant Montilou claims that the creation of Walmart by him was not malicious, only existing for 20 minutes because he did not see Walmart on the Redmont business portal. Defendant also claims that he did not earn any money from the existence of his Walmart.
3. Defendant Montilou claims that since nothing was stolen from chest shops and the defendants asked in global chat about fraud, it can be concluded that they did not have fraudulent intentions in their actions.
4. Defendant Montilou claims that since defendants never invested in the stock of Walmart, they could not stand to gain by any alleged market manipulation.
5. Defendant Olisaurus123 claims that the lack of a cease and desist letter means it is not possible for charges of intellectual property theft to be pressed.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. In regards to allegations of trespassing and contract law violation, I concur with the plaintiff. The requirement of 2 warnings or a sign applies only to permission to legally initiate PvP against the trespasser. Even if PvP is not legally granted, trespassing can still occur by being in a place without the consent of the owners. Given the presence of a wall around the plot and the fact that the only entrance point was the roof, a reasonable person should conclude that they are not to enter and they are especially not to conduct trade there. As a result of the trespassing by defendants, there is no clear offer for any trade to occur, and thus there is no valid contract for trade.
2. In regards to allegations of market manipulation, I concur with the defendants. Market manipulation is a crime relating to the stock market. Given the failure to prove that defendants won financial benefit from buying/selling Walmart stock and/or rival stock, the defendants cannot be found guilty of market manipulation. Furthermore, there has not been a single instance of a decrease in the price of Walmart stock. Earlier today in fact, the price of Walmart stock was updated with a 31.53% increase, even after accounting for the impact of defendants' actions. The lack of injury to Walmart stock further leads me to side with the defendants on this allegation.
3. In regards to allegations of intellectual property theft, I concur with the defendants. Section 4 of the Intellectual Property Protections Act does require that prior to legal action, a cease and desist letter be sent to the defendant. Plaintiff claims that the DEC provided a cease and desist letter to the defendant Olisaurus123. However, these letters are meant to be sent by the person threatening legal action to the alleged thief. In this case, the DEC sent this "letter" while the person pushing legal action is Walmart, not the DEC. Furthermore, a cease and desist letter should inform the recipient of detailed illegal actions and demand a halt to such actions with threat of legal action. While the DEC did inform him that his actions were illegal, no demand to cease and desist was made and no threat of legal action was made. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not believe a proper cease and desist letter was sent, thereby absolving the defendants of any intellectual property theft crime.
4. In regards to allegations of fraud, I concur with the plaintiff. As outlined in Point 1 of the Court's Opinion, the defendants unlawfully used the chest shops. Therefore, a dishonest and/or illegal scheme has been proven. It is also proven that items of value were successfully obtained, which in this case are cash and essentially seizing Walmart. Therefore, the two-part definition of fraud is satisfied. It can reasonably be said that defendants's actions constitute fraud.

IV. DECISION
The Federal Court rules in favor of the plaintiff in regards to fraud, committed as a result of the trespassing and contract law violations by the defendants.

The Federal Court rules in favor of the defense in regards to market manipulation and intellectual property theft.

I will grant a modified prayer for relief. I order EACH defendant to pay the following to plaintiff: $16,745.15 for the fraudulently stolen cash, $500 for legal fees, and $200 for emotional damages. Therefore, EACH defendant is to pay in total $17,445.15 to the plaintiff. Since I am declaring the transactions null and void, I also order the plaintiff to return the sold items back to the defendants who sold them.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top